If by harmonic function you mean major third, fifth, etc., then I agree. Unless you’re reading them in notation, the scale patterns on guitar which move up chromatically are best thought of harmonically, as third, fifth, etc. of a scale or chord instead of note-names; especially when improvising. Thinking this way lets the ear lead you.
I like to think of the differences between them; that way I can define what the guitar is better. Actually, I got this idea of comparing the keyboard to guitar, in terms of their mechanical function, from Pat Martino.
Is this your source…? He’s been teaching his geometries for years, so I’m sure there are plenty of others at this point.
Love his playing. Not sure what I’ve gotten from Martino’s musings over the decades, but I note, he concludes this particular clip… “These systems equal twelve, either way.” And that’s where the whole history of tonal music begins, so still not sure what the take away is.
There is a whole lot more to “harmonic function” than “major third, fifth, etc…” Seriously, the ear will take one further if one furthers one’s understanding of the same, so no, I don’t see a normative “better” or a “best” at all. If it helps you, cool.
More or less, with the caveat that it’s less the third or fifth with respect to the scale, than it is with respect to whatever chord you happen to be playing over at the time. So, if you’re playing over the V, it’s not the 7th of the scale so much as the 3rd of the V chord, etc.
Hmm. I think in patterns and sound, and I study theory. That goes both for piano and guitar. Where key signatures are concerned, they’re really on the periphery. A non-issue, not in the way of either instrument. Structure wise, what lays well on piano doesn’t necessarily lay well on guitar and vice versa, and thus there are advantages to both. Not all insight is remarkable. Not all that is an emotional discovery turns out to be important. The ability to edit is good. I feel for the inspirational famous genius apparently behind this thread, with his severe brain injury and quirky presentation, very deeply, but I probably should not have bothered responding to the thread as I don’t feel like arguing the sky is blue.
“The guitar is structured like no other instrument, and it unveils itself in a unique way. Like the piano, it has its own fully unique temperament. But the communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano.”
This is Alan Holdsworth talking about Slonimsky’s Thesaurus of Scales; it’s written enharmonically, i.e. flats and sharps only apply to the individual notes they are in front of. Listen at 30:00-31:00.
https://youtu.be/xRJVhCLLCtw
Is this more from Martino? Regardless, they’re mistaken. Sorry.
He’s addressing a jazz issue. Many of us prefer enharmonic spellings in context. It’s not evidence of Holdsworth arguing for the elimination of key signatures per se. Nor is the issue completely particular to any one instrument, no matter what my idol ponders here.
That clip kills me. Every clinic, folks referencing their own experience to blurt out things that are of little relevance or interest to the famous person. Kind of goes with the territory, but there are extremes.
Wow, I would think that it would be more prudent to consider that maybe I was misinterpreting what Martino was saying, rather than just flat-out call his ideas “wrong.” At any rate, Guitar Player magazine thought enough of his ideas to publish the article.
I see it as Holdsworth generally dismissing the idea of key signatures as being archaic, especially in the chromatic music he plays. What do you want him to do, play “Three Blind Mice?”
The quote came from where originally, the autobiography? I don’t know where you got it, but without acknowledging logical fallacy when it arises, we don’t have much to work with in terms of science and social discourse. That doesn’t mean I’m calling his “ideas ‘wrong’” in general! Nor do I think you misinterpreted his writing. The statement as quoted is logically false and can be proven as such, and several others have already stated the facts that disprove the statement earlier in the thread. In his math, it holds true, and he’s entitled to his opinion. Doesn’t make it fact.
Not sure what you mean by the latter about playing “‘Three Blind Mice’,” but in terms of what was in that clip, he was answering a question about enjoyment and utility of Slonimsky, he was not posting the subject of this thread. I’ve already stated that many of us prefer enharmonic spellings. It’s possible to hold two ideas at the same time (that key signatures exist for a reason and that they aren’t necessary in a particular context), and it’s possible to read more into a statement than is there (“dismissing the idea of key signatures as being archaic”). In fact, he explicitly left it open ended with mention of horn players. We can agree to disagree on the interpretation.
I’m glad that you have afforded me this concession. I’m still pondering the subject, and when I can flesh-out my ideas on it, I’ll post it. These are very general concepts, though, so there’s really no “proving” or disproving them, as I see it. Sometimes rational logic is too confining to be of much use in seeing the big picture. I’m not sure what your specific objections to these ideas are, but the concessions you gave are much more productive to discourse than flat-out invalidations of these ideas, which, again, are general in nature, and concern more of a “bird’s eye view” of the subject, rather than rigid assertions. These ideas could help in forming a more guitar-oriented approach to music, and that was my original purpose; not to engage in debate.
The Pat Martino quote is from the Guitar Player article of April 2004, and is reproduced in his autobiography as Appendix III.
Would you please give us the answers to these why’s? I’d be curious to read them, because my answer to “why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp” is something like “that’s just the way it is”.
Actually that makes a lot of sense (I’m sure you’re aware of it though). It would be very inconvenient for a sax or clarinet player (for example) to remember fingerings and read notation in concert pitch for every different instrument from the same family. Transposing instruments are just like Yngwie’s guitar, which sounds a half tone lower than it’s written. 
If you are going to keep returning to this thread, I would recommend changing the title of your thread to “millionrainbows thoughts on Pat Martino’s theories about piano vs. guitar,” or something similar, to your liking.
RockStarJazzCat: “If you are going to keep returning to this thread, I would recommend changing the title of your thread to “millionrainbows thoughts on Pat Martino’s theories about piano vs. guitar,” or something similar, to your liking.”
Wow, how condescending! No, I don’t think that will be necessary.
My answer is more specific than “that’s just the way it is.”
The keyboard white notes are laid out to favor the C-major scale. On the other hand, the twelve note division of the octave was arrived at by the Pythagoran-derived process of “stacking fifths,” or interval projection. The “pythagoran comma” was later corrected by ET, but the 12-division remains, and is what’s important, not “perfect” fifths.
Piano tuners start on “F” and tune all their fifths first. Why? Because that’s the only way to get seven fifths on white notes. F-C-G-D-A-E-B. If you start on C, you get C-G-D-A-E-B----F#? No, it doesn’t work.
This reveals the nature of the diatonic major scale: it has an inherent dissonance within its octave. This was the basis for George Russell’s LCC.
The diatonic major scale was designed for modulation. It does not reinforce its own key note as well as a lydian scale does.
C-D-E-F has a leading tone E-F, which reinforces a new root on F. G-A-B-C does reinforce C. But as you can see, there is a battle between F and C as roots.
The lydian scale is better for reinforcing its own scale root of F: F-G-A establishes F, the scale root, and B-C-D-E has the leading tone B-C which establishes C, the dominant, which is the most closely related relationship to F., closer than the root/subdominant “F-C” relationship in C major.
As further harmonic proof, go to any keyboard which sustains notes, such as a string or organ patch, and begin stacking fifths from C, then on F. Use all white notes. The ear can easily hear that starting on C is more dissonant than starting on F…C-G-D-A-E-B-F? The F sounds terrible. F-C-G-D-A-E-B sounds much better.
Pebber Brown demonstrates this on a YouTube vid, which is unfortunately marred by his voice being inaudible during certain sections.
OK, jazzcat, now you can ridicule me.
So far in this discussion, I don’t think that discussion of ideas is as important as disproving my statements. RockStarJazzCat is now implying that the ideas I am discussing are an idiosyncratic personal interpretation. I did not intend for the discussion to go in this direction. My purpose is to show guitarists (and all musical thinkers) that their instrument is uniquely chromatic, and should not have to depend on the rather archaic diatonic scale system-way of viewing things. Diatonicism is old-hat. There are new ways of viewing music which have emerged, and these are based on the chromatic scale, not the diatonics.
Since the piano keyboard is a reflection of a diatonic scale (7 white notes/5 black), then this is self-evident. The physical keyboard, as well as our staff notation, is all based on diatonic structures. (and the sky is blue).
In fact, this diatonic system of notation begins to break down, or show cracks, when diminished sevenths spellings are involved. Also, scales with more or less than seven notes show these same deficiencies: the whole tone, 6 notes, C-D-E-F#-G#-A#, or C-D-E-Gb-Ab-Bb? Likewise, the diminished scale: C-D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-A-B or C-D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-Bbb-B? or Cb? The sequential letter-name system, made for 7-note scales, breaks down, and new procedures must be used to accomodate this.
The net result is the same. This is a trivial point. Even if the keyboard evolved after the diatonic scale, it still reflects it in the same way.
But you seem to missing the point that the entire language of key signatures and notation is based on diatonic scales. By your statement, this diatonic spelling language seems to be so ingrained in your thinking that you are no longer able to “think outside the diatonic box,” and that’s what I am exposing.
I beg your pardon?